La Plata planning commission reviews water‑conservation draft, names subcommittee to refine it

The Town of La Plata Planning Commission on July 7 reviewed a draft water‑conservation ordinance and agreed to form a two‑member subcommittee to work with staff on revisions.

Director Dooley, the town’s planning director, told the commission staff is pursuing a three‑part strategy to address the town’s water supply constraints: implementation of the town’s newly adopted adequate public facilities ordinance, negotiation of a supplemental water agreement with Charles County, and adoption of a water‑conservation ordinance. “We are currently negotiating a supplemental water agreement with Charles County government for additional water allocation, and these negotiations are currently underway,” Dooley said.

The draft ordinance has two main components: amendments to the town’s landscaping standards (referenced in the draft as chapter 191‑48) to require drought‑tolerant and native plantings, reduced high‑water‑use turf, improved soil preparation and specified mulch depths; and a new Article 11 establishing townwide water‑conservation standards and emergency drought restrictions. Under the draft Article 11, the town manager could declare a water‑conservation alert when usage reaches 80% of permitted capacity or when a state drought is declared. The draft defines designated large‑volume users (e.g., users exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or 300,000 gallons per billing cycle), sets odd/even outdoor watering schedules during alerts, limits watering hours, restricts nonessential uses (sidewalk and driveway washing, with narrow health/safety exceptions), and allows for escalating municipal infraction fines for ongoing violations.

Commissioners pressed staff on technical details. Dooley said the town’s current permit sets a maximum daily withdrawal of about 1,234,000 gallons per day and that seasonal spikes bring usage near or above the draft’s 80% alert threshold. He said exceeding permitted allocations can expose the town to potential state penalties. Commissioners asked whether the county water agreement would be permanent or limited in term, whether unused allocations carry over year to year, and whether the town has assessed system leakage; Dooley said negotiations and some technical details remain unresolved and that staff will consult the town manager and public works for specific leakage figures.

Members also flagged equity and messaging concerns. One commissioner urged that the ordinance be strongly educational rather than punitive, noting that residents may perceive conservation measures as a failure to plan. Commissioners asked staff to consider exemptions and fairness for businesses that rely on water (hair salons, commercial car washes that recycle water were noted) and to weigh whether exempting many large users would limit the ordinance’s effectiveness. Dooley said enforcement would likely prioritize education and warnings, with penalties reserved for gross noncompliance, and that the subcommittee could help define metrics for success and clarify exemptions.

On process, staff recommended appointing a one‑to‑two member subcommittee to work directly with staff on drafting. The commission agreed to establish a subcommittee; staff recorded the subcommittee membership as Commissioner Wale and Commissioner Ford and said Chair Banks indicated she would be available if the commission chose to appoint her. Dooley said the subcommittee’s work and a revised draft would return to the full commission for review and a recommendation to the Town Council.

The commission made no final policy changes at the meeting; the action was to create the subcommittee and solicit detailed revisions. The commission also asked staff to add clearer success metrics and to supply technical data on leakage, exemption effects and any contract terms under negotiation with Charles County that affect long‑term allocation.